Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 15 June.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 15 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

British Food

Mr. Spring: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to encourage the consumption of food produced in the United Kingdom. [25812]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): My ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity, through our marketing grants and other practical help, to encourage the industry to improve its marketing performance.

Mr. Spring: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that support for home-produced British food, which is so excellent, also comes from the private sector? Can she also assure the House that she and her fellow Ministers will set a best-practice personal example by eating good British food at all appropriate opportunities?

Mrs. Browning: On the first point, I commend to my hon. Friend and the House the excellent work of Food From Britain, which this year will receive £5 million from the Government and which also attracts money from the private sector. On the second point, I can confirm to the House that since I was appointed Minister for Food a year ago, I have done my best to eat British food, and have gone up one dress size as a result.

Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister acknowledge that the best way to assist home producers will be to prevent

unfair competition from exports from other states? In that regard, can she confirm that the Minister's statement that he found very powerful the case for restricting imports of foods and food products into this country from other member states of the European Union, where the same standard of hygiene and animal welfare do not apply, is one that she is examining carefully? Can she further confirm that, under the treaty of Rome, there is nothing to stop the Minister using his powers to prevent those foods from being put into the British market, which puts our consumers in an unfortunate position?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are strict rules on hygiene within the Community and also in the trade that we do with countries outside the Community. The Ministry would always take the necessary action to make sure that food that had a question mark against it in terms of hygiene was taken out of the food chain and that the necessary steps were taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister has demonstrated clearly his desire, against a free-trade background, to encourage both hygiene and welfare-friendly food. Obviously, the best way to do that within the single market is by Europe-wide agreement and enforcement.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. and slim Friend is far too young to remember that there used to be a "Buy British" campaign. Will she and her Department consider introducing an "Eat English" campaign? If she is clever enough, she may be able to think of a similar phrase for the Welsh and the Scottish. When is she going to promote Britain even more than she already does?

Mrs. Browning: I accept the compliment from one so young, and thank him for it. It is interesting to note that "Produce of England" is a label that is now put on food sold in Paris by Marks and Spencer because the French and other nations seek out English food. In Paris, £40,000-worth of British sandwiches, made in this country, are sold. Throughout the capital of France, they seek out British muffins. Around the world, one can see the success of the British food industry.

Mr. Martyn Jones: One way to encourage the consumption of home-produced food is to discourage imports. What does the Minister intend to do about the estimated 80,000 tonnes of Spanish lettuce which we believe is imported at below-cost price?

Mrs. Browning: On discouraging imports, the answer is to encourage and support import substitution. Through the good quality, safe food which we have in this country, we can persuade UK consumers to seek out UK-produced food. The hon. Gentleman will know that the lettuce industry is currently jeopardised because of an absurd decision about nitrate levels in lettuces. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is working hard to ensure that the English lettuce industry survives, people eat British lettuces, and those European nonsenses that arise from time to time are batted away as quickly as possible.

Farm Land

Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to help make more rented land available to people who want to enter farming. [25813]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which comes into force on 1 September this year, will encourage landowners to let more land. This will be reinforced by 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax for land in new tenancies granted on or after 1 September. That is good news for new entrants to farming.

Mr. Key: That is indeed good news. Will my right hon. Friend now turn his attention to county council farms? Would it not be sensible to promote mobility across the whole farming sector? In Wiltshire alone, 13,000 acres of land are in public ownership with 127 tenancies, the average of which is 26 years. That hardly promotes mobility. Those are excellent farmers, but they need an opportunity one way or another. One way might be to sell the farms to those farmers in the same way as selling council houses; another way might be to introduce short-term tenancies. Will my right hon. Friend look at that problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is a matter for the counties concerned, but the figures that my hon. Friend gives show that, in his county—I suspect that other counties are the same—county farms do little to bring in new entrants because of the length of tenancies granted. If the new Act works in the medium term as we hope, it will do far more for new entrants even than county farms have done in the past.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that it is essential to ensure that the rural population of many areas is maintained? Does he accept that, if holdings are small, new incomers to farming may find it difficult to make a decent livelihood?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government will look at the health of the rural economy more widely when we publish a White Paper later this year. In some areas, farming still plays an important part in that, although we must widen the source of jobs available in the countryside. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however.

Horticulture

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the contribution his research and development budget can make to extending the availability of home-grown horticulture produce. [25814]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): An assessment of the Ministry's research and development budget shows that work on improved crop varieties and seasonal extensions will continue to improve the availability of home-grown horticultural produce.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Will he confirm that his R and D programmes are designed to make our domestic producers the best in the world, and able to compete with Europe and the rest of the world? Will he also confirm that research moneys which he is giving are used in conjunction with private industry's research funds?

Mr. Jack: I confirm both those points to my hon. Friend. The work that we have been doing includes the £41 million

restructuring of the Horticultural Research Institute, which gives it an opportunity to become one of the best science-based aids to the whole of the United Kingdom horticultural industry and puts it on a good basis to receive money from the Horticultural Development Council. We can go further than that. With the "Technology Foresight" exercise on which we are embarking, on strawberries, mushrooms and apples, we shall look to the future technological needs of the industry.

Live Animal Exports

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the legal opinion obtained by the RSPCA on the export of veal calves and EC law; and if he will make a statement. [25815]

Mr. Waldegrave: I informed the House of the results of my considerations of this matter in my response to a question from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on 22 May.

Mr. Mullin: Would the Secretary of State like to publish the legal advice that he has received? He has had a rough time this week, and one way to clean up his image a bit might be to be a little more open on the export of calves to countries that operate the odious veal crate. Further to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), does he agree that there will come a time when we can ban unilaterally the export of calves to countries that use veal crates? That will make more impression on our allies than simply being nice to them.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude, which is very usual from him.
Unfortunately, I am clearly advised that the argument used in the Barling advice, which we studied extremely carefully, does not justify any unilateral action. I believe that we are well on the way to winning the campaign to ban the veal crates, about which the hon. Gentleman and I share the same opinion—most people in the House share that opinion. It would be very unwise to take action that was then struck down by the courts, as that would remove the issue to the European Court of Justice, perhaps for years, just at the moment when we are on the way—if the veterinary report that is coming in to the Community says what I believe that it will say—to winning the argument.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way forward is not to ban veal calf exports, which would have a devastating effect on our farmers, but to ban veal crates in Europe, which is an initiative that we have already taken?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. If we are interested in the animal welfare outcome, there would be nothing especially smart about banning calves that come only from this country—even if we could do it—if they were immediately replaced in the same veal crates in Belgium, or wherever it is, by calves that come from somewhere else.
The object is to get rid of that practice. We have powerful allies around Europe for doing so—Germany is alongside us on that, as are the Scandinavian countries and others—and I believe that we shall win the argument. That would be a far greater gain for animal welfare, without placing our farmers in jeopardy.

Dr. Strang: I assure the Minister that we stand four square behind our commitment to give Europe a lead on that issue by stopping the export of veal calves from this country into continental veal crates. I also remind him that, in January, he declared that the days of veal crates throughout Europe were numbered—I remind him, days. Will he tell us when he now expects veal crates to be banned throughout the European Union?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, I have already explained why I believe that the hon. Gentleman's gesture politics in that respect would set the cause back, for the following reason. If he introduced his unilateral ban—which would be challenged, as the Commission has warned that it would be challenged, straight away—the whole thing would be in the long grass of legal dispute, perhaps for years.
As I said in January, the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the Community will bring its report back to the Council, probably in September or October. We have a majority in the Council if that Committee recommends the banning of veal crates, as I believe that it will, so there is a good chance that the decision will be taken before the end of this year. That is a far greater outcome for animal welfare than the gesture that the hon. Gentleman recommends.

Common Agricultural Policy

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his EU colleagues to discuss the further reform of the common agricultural policy. [25816]

9. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effects of recent attempts to reform the common agricultural policy. [25820]

Mr. Waldegrave: The next Agriculture Council is scheduled for 19 and 20 June. I will continue to press for further improvements to the common agricultural policy at this and every other suitable opportunity, in order to build on the achievements of the 1992 reforms.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend spell out to the House his vision of a reformed CAP? What would it look like? Does he, for example, favour the progressive reduction of support prices to world levels?

Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend knows, I shall produce a report on that very matter, setting out my opinions in detail. However, in principle I do not think that anyone doubts that we need a policy that moves far closer to the market, and that deals with the real issues of environmental and social support, where they are rightly to be supported in the countryside, explicitly and not by agricultural policy. It is expensive and inefficient to use high food prices for those purposes.

Mrs. Gorman: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend goes grocery shopping, but is it not true that the British housewife pays twice as much for her groceries as she needs to? Is it not true that, if she went to the United States—which I admit is a long way to go for shopping—she would find groceries on sale for half the price, in a country where salaries are generally almost double ours? Is it not true that the common agricultural policy is nothing more than a rip-off of the British taxpayer? It

cannot be reformed. Is it not true that we should repatriate those powers and return to a system of supporting our own farmers, as we used to do, with agricultural supports?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right: if one goes shopping in America one finds that food prices are very much lower than they are in Europe. As a matter of fact, the common agricultural policy is not only expensive for the British consumer but is now proving expensive for consumers throughout Europe. I doubt whether a single country in Europe is deriving net economic benefit from the CAP. It must be radically reformed. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend that repatriation is the best way forward. Repatriation is likely to mean the re-emergence of competitive protection and competitive state aids, supports and subsidies, which would damage British farming as well as the consumer.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister spell out on each occasion that he proposes necessary reforms of the CAP exactly how much the salaries of British farmers will be reduced as a consequence?

Mr. Waldegrave: The calculations are interesting but difficult. If we stop the artificial dumping of subsidised foods on to world markets, world prices will rise. Farmers have less to fear from a world where there is freer competition because of that increase in world prices. The drastic experiment of New Zealand, which was forced to abolish all subsidies overnight—no one is proposing that here—shows that competitive farming can come through, even when farmers are competing with subsidised farming elsewhere.

Mr. Stevenson: When the Secretary of State has discussions with our European Union partners, will he raise the issue of the agrimonetary system? The Secretary of State will know that a significant proportion of the 6 per cent. increase in farm incomes is a result of the devaluation of sterling and the agrimonetary system. What specific proposals does the Secretary of State have in mind to reform that chaotic system, which costs the taxpayer a lot of money? How will he reconcile any reform with the need to ensure that there is no significant reduction in farm incomes as a result?

Mr. Waldegrave: We talked about long-term reform in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold). The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, in that we face a real and imminent problem with regard to agrimoney. That issue will come up at the next Council meeting.
Britain's additional green pound devaluations are caused largely by the refusal of countries with stronger currencies, such as Germany, to allow revaluations. That makes the system break down completely and adds to net costs. We are strongly opposed to that and we are arguing, on the same side as the Commission, that revaluation should be allowed to take place within the agrimonetary system. If that does not happen, British food processors will be severely disadvantaged, as is beginning to occur already.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is it not a fact that the size and structure of farms in the United Kingdom is very different from that in all other countries in the European Union?
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that fact is taken into account very firmly when considering reform of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. What is considered to be a small farm in the United Kingdom is a large farm in virtually every other country in the European Community. That is why we are opposed to what is called, in Euro-jargon, modulation—that is, shifting all the support to aim at small farms. Small farms in Europe are minuscule farms here, and that kind of policy would seriously damage British farming.

Mr. Skinner: When will the Minister realise that all the talk about the long-term and a further review of the common agricultural policy is not in his best interests? If he wants to see anything done about the common agricultural policy and get his name in the history books, he had better do it sharpish, before he gets sacked.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the all-party support that I am being offered. I will do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's time scale.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Minister or office in his Department is responsible for overseeing the fundamental review of public expenditure in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the level of possible savings. [25817]

Mr. Waldegrave: Officials conducting the fundamental expenditure review are reporting to me. It is too early to say what savings might arise from the review.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope that he will be in charge of the fundamental review of public expenditure in his Department because, unless it is driven by politicians, it is unlikely that there will be much of a review at all. My question may be connected with the previous one in that, if we want to see a reduction in the costs of government, there may have to be a reduction in the costs of the agricultural policy in Europe as well as reform; otherwise, it is not really reform in the proper sense of the word.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the first battle is to get some sense into the agrimonetary system. That threatens to drive up costs in the short term, which would be really disastrous. The frustration for my Department is that those parts of our expenditure that are entirely under the control of Ministers answering to the House and are without the structure of the agricultural policy—our marketing grants and our environmental grants—would be genuinely supported on both sides of the House as being rather well targeted, but the pressure is always on them, because we cannot make unilateral cuts in the CAP fund.

Ms Janet Anderson: Will the Minister tell us how much his Department spends every year on tribunals of appeal against Ministry decisions to close slaughterhouses? Does he believe that cleanliness and hygiene should be taken into account when determining those appeals?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady has a particular case in mind in her own constituency and I shall write to her

with the answer. I do not think that we have had any expenditure on those appeals, because the tribunal has only just been set up alongside the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall write with more details to the hon. Lady.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the search for further savings in his Department's expenditure is important, it must not, under any circumstances, be achieved by a further reduction in the support paid to hill farmers through the hill livestock compensatory allowance? Hill farm incomes are falling and the HLCAs should increase, not reduce.

Mr. Waldegrave: I hear clearly the message from my hon. Friend, and I am sure that we shall endeavour to take that into account in our discussions with the Treasury in the expenditure round.

Live Animal Exports

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what concerns have been expressed to him concerning the conditions under which farm animals are exported. [25818]

Mrs. Browning: We continue to make a large number of representations expressing concern about the live export trade.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of thousands of people around the country are deeply concerned about the treatment of farm animals during export? They have been demonstrating peacefully at many ports, and some have been disgracefully treated and prosecuted under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Department claims that it is trying to persuade European countries not to allow veal calves to go into crates. As that has been so unsuccessful, would it not be better to put a one-off ban on the export of live animals to force others to recognise that people in Britain take animal welfare seriously and are not prepared to see such barbaric conditions continue for calves reared in Britain?

Mrs. Browning: I am aware of the concern in the country about the welfare of farm animals in transit. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House since 2.30 pm and will have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister explain clearly why unilateral action on our part is not only not practical, but not in the long-term interests of animal welfare generally. As for his point about people protesting, peaceful protests are the democratic right of people in Britain. However, I abhor those people who break the law, subject others to violence and quite rightly come before the courts.

Mr. Garnier: May I assure my hon. Friend that, whatever the views of the window box owners of north Islington, the farmers of south-east Leicestershire are concerned that there should not be a ban on the export of live animals, although they fully accept that there is no need to have cruel exports? Will she reassure the House that she will do her best to ensure that the live animal export regime continues?

Mrs. Browning: That is what my right hon. Friend has been doing in his efforts to persuade the Community to raise its standards to those of the United Kingdom. We believe that we have the highest standards in Europe, and this is an opportunity for other countries in Europe and


elsewhere to raise their standards to meet ours. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that, if his farmers and those people who transport animals abide by the regulations and codes of practice, they have nothing to fear and the trade will certainly continue.

Children (Diets)

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to improve the diet of children. [25819]

Mrs. Browning: We are preparing advice to parents about healthy diets for pre-school children and we are considering a version of our booklets written especially for school children. We continue to provide substantial funding to the British Nutrition Foundation for its teaching pack for schools entitled "Food: A fact of life".

Mr. Williams: I am pleased to hear about the advice prepared for parents and children, but what about the manufacturers? A survey by the Minister's Department and the Department of Health published earlier this year showed that children under five consumed double the recommended intakes of salt and sugar. Children are daily bombarded with advertisements for chocolates, sweets, crisps and junk food, with the result that there has been a deterioration recently in their dental health. Every year, 25,000 children under the age of five have a tooth extracted. What is the Department doing to persuade manufacturers to cease some of their advertising of junk food for children?

Mrs. Browning: I deplore the term "junk food", which implies that all convenience and snack foods are not healthy. That is not true. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, however. The Department is working hard, in conjunction with other Departments—especially the Department of Health—to make sure that we put the information in the public domain so that people can make informed choices.
Children of school age have quite a bit of disposable income, in terms of pocket money and earnings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that the Ministry and manufacturers have worked with the nutrition task force to put information packs into schools, up to key stage 4, to ensure that children are taught about diet and nutrition. I hope that, in this way, we shall be able to influence the next generation to make informed choices.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective way of improving children's diets is to ensure that the prices of fruit, vegetables, cereals, fish and other commodities in the shops are kept as low as possible? Does she agree that that can best be achieved by discarding the nonsensical aspects of the common agricultural policy that cover those commodities?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend's reply about the task force which is looking at the best way of reforming the CAP. His point about fruit and vegetables is important. I suggest that people buy seasonal fruit and vegetables, rather than what are often the more expensive fruit and vegetables, now fortunately available to everyone but not necessarily the most economic. People should buy the more traditional

fruits and vegetables which are in season and which constitute good value for money, thereby contributing to children's and adults' diets.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister agree that one of the key aspects of the diet of children is keeping them safe from infections such as listeria? Is it therefore a sensible Government policy to propose the closure of the Torry food science laboratory in Aberdeen, which has a reputation of excellence in this and a number of other areas? Does she accept that the overwhelming body of opinion in the north-east of Scotland favours saving that vital scientific facility? On precisely what date did the proposal to close it appear on her desk or the desk of the Minister?

Mrs. Browning: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to discuss that with my right hon. Friend. I cannot today give him the exact date, but he will know that the work carried out by the laboratory will be continued elsewhere, so there is no threat to human health or food safety. My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I shall ensure that he is kept informed as soon as a date is known.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to eradicate fraud in the common agricultural policy. [25821]

Mr. Waldegrave: At the Essen European Council last December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a number of proposals to help tackle fraud, as well as waste and mismanagement. These are now being taken forward. They include a requirement for the annual reporting on national action to combat fraud and waste. The Government are giving the Commission full support in its efforts to take more effective action against fraud.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for that answer. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is relatively little agricultural fraud in the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the annoyance caused to our farmers when they see other countries—Italy, for instance—getting away with what is seen as large-scale fraud, particularly to do with milk quotas?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am strongly aware of those feelings, which is why we have successfully pressed the Commission to take more formidable action. My hon. Friend will know that, as a result of a wholly British initiative, Italy, Spain and Greece were taken to the court over milk quotas, and in the end £2.5 billion was taken off them in the form of fines—the biggest single disallowance in the history of the Community, I believe.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, despite the Government having had 16 years to try to eradicate fraud within the CAP, fraud is still a major problem? Why should we believe now that the Government, whose time is fast running out, will solve the problem in their dying months?

Mr. Waldegrave: The level of fraud in the United Kingdom, where the Government have a direct role, is very low, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said. In the last year when the accounts were fully closed, which, surprisingly, was


1991, we had only £2 million of £1.2 billion-worth of fines. That shows that the British record is good. We have been making efforts—they have been increasingly successful—with other countries, such as the Scandinavian states that have recently joined the Community, to ensure that standards are raised elsewhere. That is beginning to happen.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst vice in the common agricultural policy is that the British are inclined to obey rules while most continental farmers are inclined to disobey them? Surely the best reform would be for us to get out of the CAP now and become self-sufficient in agriculture.

Mr. Waldegrave: Much the best outcome is to maintain a single market with a proper, level playing field, which involves the avoidance of illegal state aids and of fraud, rather than asking British farmers to compete against farmers abroad who are subsidised by their Governments. That is what our farmers want, and that is the agriculture policy that we need in future.

Dr. Strang: Has the Minister seen the Commission's admission that there is now proof that criminal organisations have been successfully claiming butter export subsidies when they have not been exporting butter? Will he admit that, every year, hundreds of millions of pounds of agriculture export subsidies are claimed fraudulently?

Mr. Waldegrave: Not in this country. I am extremely pleased that the Commission is becoming far more realistic about the extent of fraud elsewhere. That is the first stage in stamping out fraud. We have been supporting the Commission's blacklist proposal—I believe that it was our proposal originally. When implemented, it will greatly toughen the handling of export subsidies. That realistic appreciation of the scale of the problem must come first if action is to be taken.

Bull Fighting

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will urge at the next European Council of Ministers for the termination of European Union moneys for the rearing of bulls for bull fighting. [25823]

Mr. Jack: The agenda for the next Agriculture Council does not include that item for discussion.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am hardly surprised. Waiting for an end to the European subsidy to the beef special premium is about as fruitful as waiting for the cows to come home. Would it not be much better for the Government unilaterally to stop subsidising the rearing of bulls for execution in the bull rings of Pamplona and Aragon? The qualities of these animals are hardly culinary; I would have thought that their qualities are much more combative.

Mr. Jack: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the repugnant practice of bull fighting. He must take into account, however, the fact that British specialist beef producers gain, to the tune of about £119 million, from the scheme. In the way in which the scheme is constructed, it would not be possible unilaterally to implement my hon.
Friend's suggestion. We shall be asking the Commission, in appraising the effectiveness of the beef special premium scheme, to re-examine the matter.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the Minister of State shares the concern of his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), why does he not raise the issue directly? If he did that, we would know that he is serious in what he says. We shall judge Ministers by their actions and not their words. It is appalling that we should be subsidising bull fighting. It is a barbaric activity. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in encouraging British tourists who go to Spain to stay away from bull fighting?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point. Those considering holidaying in Spain—perhaps even Opposition Members—will listen to what he has to say.
We have already had one go in attacking the practice by reducing the overall level of expenditure on the scheme. We have made it clear to the Commission that we would welcome its positive proposals on the issue. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, we shall urge the Commission to appraise the worthwhileness of the beef special premium scheme in this context.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what attempts he has made to involve the fishing industry in his CFP reform group. [25824]

Mr. Jack: All sections of the industry have been invited to contribute their ideas to the common fisheries policy review group.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the conservation of our fishing stocks must be paramount in any future reform of the CFP? How does he intend to involve the fishing industry in plans to implement the December agreement?

Mr. Jack: On both counts—the arrangements for the western waters and conservation—we have had many useful meetings with the fishing industry. It is fully involved in that work.

On the new arrangements from 1 January next year, we have secured from the Commission an agreement that there will be, as part of its package of implementing regulations, proposals on conservation. I have also secured an additional benefit: it will review the minimum landing sizes. That, combined with good conservation gear, can make a big contribution to long-term fish conservation.

Dr. Godman: Any reform of the CFP, or a campaign for such reform, should surely advocate a complete ban of all industrial fishing in the North sea and elsewhere. To that end, should not the reform of the CFP be looking at the regional management and regional preferences for fishermen who are based in the more fragile fishing communities?

Mr. Jack: I always find it sad when somebody who follows fishing matters as closely as the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge the lead that the United Kingdom has taken on the whole question of industrial fishing.
It was we who got the Commission to agree to the scientific study—the results of which we are awaiting—to look into this whole matter. The science is complex. We are troubled and concerned by this issue and we keep the pressure up, as we will at the North sea conference, to deal with the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have in fact invited Mr. Alain Laurec, in Directorate-General XIV, the No. 2 official in the Commission, who deals with this particular matter, to come to talk to us about some of the regionalisation ideas that are being discussed. It is a very important issue in the dynamics of Europe's future fishing policy.

Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a massive danger that, when the CFP comes up for complete review in 2002, we could have a repetition of the disgraceful events that occurred before Christmas over Spanish access to the Irish box, when we were outvoted because of the system of qualified majority voting? Therefore, will he take up my suggestion with other Ministers and look at the possibility of trying to get restoration of the veto for the final decision on the CFP review?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right in his own way to raise the question of protecting our vital national interests. He discusses it in the context of the veto. At least that is the kind of idea that comes from Conservative Members; Opposition Members would do away with vetoes left right and centre. I shall certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend says, and I can assure him that, in any further discussions on reform of the CFP, Britain's vital national interests will be at the top of our agenda.

Mr. Morley: Has the Minister had a chance to see the evidence submitted by Dr. Mark Tasker, of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, to the North sea conference, which suggested that, unless urgent steps are taken on fish stocks, North sea cod as a commercial stock will be extinct in five years? Are we to see some meaningful progress towards tackling pollution, tackling industrial fisheries and bringing in closed areas before fish and chips becomes a luxury food?

Mr. Jack: As somebody who enjoys his fish and chips and grew up not far from Harry Ramsden's fish and chip shop, I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I have seen the evidence that Dr. Tasker has put forward, but I think that he may be exaggerating, shall we say, to make a particular point. The hon. Gentleman, who, again, follows fishing matters closely, will know that the scientists advised last year that there should be a 30 per cent. reduction in effort on cod, and that was in fact reflected in the cod quota agreed at last December's Fisheries Council; so Ministers do listen to that point. I do not think that there will be a total collapse of the cod stock in the North sea, because there are about 500 million cod there already.

Rural White Paper

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to learn about the views of rural organisations, as part of the rural White Paper exercise. [25825]

Mr. Waldegrave: Our consultation letter received over 360 responses from organisations and individuals. In

addition, my colleagues from the Department of the Environment and I have been conducting regional seminars with a wide range of rural interests.

Mr. Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is not easy, it is very important to strike the right balance between protecting the interests of those who live and work in the countryside and protecting and enhancing our natural heritage? Does he think that the recent review of agri-environment policy makes important proposals in that context, and deserves wide support?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. He has been a great campaigner for some of the conservation measures that we are now enacting—those relating to historic hedgerows, for instance. He has made an important point about the countryside. We must not view it as some kind of museum; it is a place where people live and work, and we must give them space in which to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25842]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Legg: Following last week's launch of the European Commission's blueprint for the introduction of a single currency, will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the lifetime of this Parliament he will not make any commitments, or support any proposals, for the United Kingdom to subscribe to a timetable for joining the single currency?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. I do not believe that the question of joining a single currency will in practice arise for some time, and I confirm my hon. Friend's proposition. Arguably, the circumstances may not ever be right, and it is for that reason that I have preserved the House's right to make its own decision as and when the practical time for a decision may arise. Even if that time does arise, we should need to consider not only the economic conditions but the political and constitutional implications.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept that, as a result of the withdrawal of mortgage help for those who become unemployed, the vast majority of home owners—particularly new home owners—will have to take out mortgage insurance? What is his estimate of the cost of that policy to a home owner with an average mortgage?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, any responsible Government must review the size of the social security budget—now running at well over £80 million of taxpayers' money. As for the cost, the right hon. Gentleman may have seen—as I have—the news that the Skipton building society proposes to introduce cover for all its borrowers without increasing premiums.
I believe that lenders should recognise their obligation to protect home owners, and I hope that others will do the same.

Mr. Blair: I assume that the Prime Minister is holding that out as an example of what is going to happen. Does he say that there will be any additional cost? If so, what is his estimate?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that my first reply clearly flummoxed the right hon. Gentleman. I was holding out what is being done by the Skipton building society as an example of best practice, and I very much hope that other people will have to pay

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who is paying?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Who is paying?" Despite what the Labour party has to say about holding down public expenditure, both he and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition seem keen that the taxpayer should pay on every occasion.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has failed to deal with the fact that the vast majority of home owners will have to pay more for his policy. If he cannot give us an estimate of the cost, what does he say to this morning's reports that the insurance claims of many people who have cover are not even met? Would it not be sensible to reconsider a policy that is, in effect, a tax on every home owner, will mean more repossessions and will depress an already depressed housing market?

The Prime Minister: One would hardly imagine, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as far as housing is concerned, a Labour study group, for example, threatened to abolish mortgage interest relief totally.
On the particular point about insurance, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made clear, we wish to have a high-quality, comprehensive system of mortgage insurance to minimise the danger of home owners losing their home through misfortune. In terms of best practice, I have already said what the cost might be. I hope that other people will look towards that best practice. My right hon. Friend has been working with the Association of British Insurers to develop guidelines for the best practice of mortgage protection insurance and many new, quality products are emerging. That is very much the reason why I welcome initiatives like that from Skipton.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25843]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one living in Herefordshire now need wait more than nine months for hospital in-patient treatment, and that that significant progress, along with much else, has come about during the first year of the operation of the Hereford hospitals national health service trust? Is that not a good example of the success of health service reforms, and does he agree that it would be crazy to reverse those changes, especially along the lines of the proposals espoused this week by the Labour party?

Mr. Mackinlay: Assume that the answer is yes and let us get on with it.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that the answer is yes, but I very much doubt that he will ever be here to give the answer, either yes or no. I am pleased to hear of the success of my hon. Friend's local hospital trust. I recall that it was not all that long ago that the Opposition Front-Bench team was saying that every hospital trust was going to be privatised after the next election, and here is a hospital trust in the national health service performing as my hon. Friend has just set out. He is right about the Opposition's plans on the health service. They are now sharpening up a threat to the health service, not least by abolishing fundholding, which covers more than 40 per cent. of general practitioner patients up and down the country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: "Hear, hear," says the hon. Gentleman. What will he say to the patients of those fundholders when the extra facilities provided by fundholding are lost? He may say, "Hear, hear." He does not like it. He does not like the extra facilities. If he wishes to damage GP care, that is the way to do it, and that, he acknowledges, is his party's policy.

Mr. Sheldon: In the week of the funeral of Lord Wilson, will the Prime Minister consider one of the most important aspects of Lord Wilson's premiership: his concern about manufacturing production, after the decline of which he called for the need to reinstate Britain as the workshop of the world? In his period, levels of investment in manufacturing were very large and much greater than they have been in the years of this Administration. In the light of today's decline in the index of industrial production, will the Prime Minister start to accord to manufacturing industry investment the sort of priority that Lord Wilson had?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, not only has there been in the past year or so a substantial improvement in the quantum of manufacturing and in manufacturing investment; there has also been, for the first time, I think, since before Lord Wilson became Prime Minister in 1964, a growth in the number of people with full-time jobs in manufacturing industry. When one considers our export figures and breaks them down, one sees the extent to which manufacturing industry—the management and work force in manufacturing industry—have begun to improve and sell their product with greater skill, both at home and abroad, so I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations for manufacturing and I believe that they are coming about.

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25845]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the recently renegotiated Anglo-United States air services agreement? In that regard, can he confirm that he will use the national veto if necessary on any attempt by the European Union to usurp our country's right to negotiate with other countries both the destinations for British airlines and the frequency of


services, because the EU has shown itself to be manifestly incompetent in curbing the gross subsidies to state carriers on the part of some of our continental partners?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that has always been negotiated as a national matter and we believe that that is the right way to deal with it. Our concern is to secure the maximum benefits for United Kingdom passengers through increased choice and lower prices. We believe that negotiation by national Governments is the most appropriate way to achieve that. It is precisely in that way that we reached agreement this week with the United States on a further deal to liberalise our air services.

Mr. Hardy: The Prime Minister will be aware that, during the past few days, many of his colleagues have been trumpeting achievements on employment, suggesting that it is lower in Britain than in most other European countries. Does he accept that examination of the statistics shows that that is eyewash? Does he also accept that many jobs in Britain are filled by people who are paid wages that no one else in Europe would accept?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on any of his propositions. Not only is our employment pretty much the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Holland among the larger nations, on any basis that one cares to calculate, but the number of people in employment is growing. For example, if I look at the constituencies of hon. Members whose names are down to ask questions today I see that, from the peak, unemployment in Warwickshire, North is down 40 per cent. [Interruption.] I promise that the hon. Gentleman is not asking a planted question. Unemployment in Southampton, Itchen is down 25 per cent. and it is down 30 per cent. in Denton and Reddish and 24 per cent. in Sedgefield.

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25846]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour councillors in Mid Glamorgan recently gave themselves an allowance increase of 388 per cent.? Does he agree that that is an incredibly selfish and greedy example of how Labour councils work? They whinge about other people's pay increases but, given the first opportunity, they have their snouts firmly in the trough, they put themselves first and stuff everyone they are supposed to represent.

The Prime Minister: I did indeed see those reports in the morning press and I would say to those councils and

others that they also have a duty to remember that they are spending local taxpayers' money. If that is an example of new Labour in action, it seems to have no advantages whatsoever over old Labour.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25847]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: The House of Commons Library has told me that, since 1979, unemployment is up more than 100 per cent. in north Warwickshire. If the Prime Minister and his Government come forward with pre-election tax cuts, will those not be bought at the price of underfunding schools and the police? In my county of Warwickshire, we are losing 172 teachers and more than 50 police officers. Are not undermining the police and damaging the educational opportunities of children in Warwickshire too high a price to pay for this Prime Minister who is seeking to save his political neck and that of this discredited Government?

The Prime Minister: I take it that that was—implicitly—a condemnation of the 388 per cent. increase in Labour councillors' allowances in Mid Glamorgan.

Mr. Prescott: What about the Warwickshire 100 per cent. unemployment?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if the deputy leader of the Labour party would care to stop shouting—[Interruption.] The Labour party cannot have it both ways. Labour Members cannot criticise us week after week after week over alleged tax increases and then say that they would oppose tax reductions as well. They had better make up their mind whether they are in favour of high tax, low tax, no tax, or just taking every opportunity that they can on any issue to say whatever happens to be appropriate on the day for a cheap, short-term headline.
As for education and other matters, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) will have seen right the way through the period in office of this Government an increase in resources spent on the health service—a dramatic increase in the health service, another £1.3 billion this year, a huge increase in 1979 in real terms over and above inflation year after year after year after year. In education, it does not matter whether one looks at primary, secondary or further education. That is why in 1979 one in eight of our young adults were getting into university and these days it is pretty nearly one in three as a result of the changes that we have made and the increased resources that we have made available

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 JuNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
Remaining stages of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
TUESDAY 13 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Insecurity in the Housing Market" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE—Until 2.30 pm there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order.
THURSDAY 15 JUNE—Until 7 o'clock, motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents.
In the following week, I propose to provide for a further Opposition day on Monday 19 June. On Tuesday 20 June, I expect to take the Second Reading of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill. I anticipate taking Government business on Wednesday 21 and Thursday 22 June. Friday 23 June is a non-sitting day.

[Tuesday 13 June:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: unnumbered, Fisheries: Integration of Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-xvii (1994–95).

Wednesday 14 June:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: unnumbered, Broad Economic Guidelines; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-xviii (1994–95).]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information and in particular for the fact that he has been able to give us more information with regard to the second week than on some occasions.
With reference to the new Select Committee that was established this week to implement the Nolan committee recommendations, will the Leader of the House confirm that he will do all in his power to ensure that that Committee gets under way as quickly as possible and is able to meet as frequently as is necessary to meet the Nolan timetable?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have been pressing him for information about when we can expect economic debates in Government time, not least so that we may discuss what the Financial Times calls the "economic slow-down". Can he give us any further

information today about the progress that he is making in terms of fitting in those debates, which the House will be anxious to have?
In view of the widespread public concern about the huge private profits from the running of the national lottery, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the matter, not least so that we can also discuss the impact of the lottery on charities, particularly medical charities?
Will the Leader of the House also respond to the need to debate another issue of significant public concern, which was highlighted in the report on the private security industry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as there are now more private security employees than serving police officers and as not one witness before the Select Committee was opposed to statutory regulation of the industry? Surely we now need from the Government not a White Paper, but early action.
If the Government do not intend to take early action, will the Leader of the House at least arrange a debate so that Parliament can prove that it is willing to tackle the problems created by the elements of the industry that appear to act as institutionalised protection racketeers? Will the Government give an assurance that they will stop obstructing or delaying the measures that the Select Committee recommended and which, clearly, the majority of hon. Members want to see put into place?

Mr. Newton: On the last point, the Government have, as the hon. Lady knows, welcomed the helpful recommendations in the report by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Clearly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will seek to respond as soon as possible. I am not, however, in a position to say this afternoon exactly when and in what form that response will come.
I have two points to make about the lottery, while bearing the hon. Lady's request, as ever, much in mind. First, Camelot's bid to operate the lottery entailed a lower share of turnover for operating costs and profit than that of any other applicant for the licence. Secondly, part of the background to what the hon. Lady has said is that Camelot has made an astonishing success of the lottery, to the benefit of all the many good causes that will gain from it.
Proceeding in reverse order with the hon. Lady's questions, I now refer to her request for economic debates before the summer recess. I am afraid to say that I am still not in a position to give definite dates, but I continue to be aware of and intend to fulfil the Government's undertakings on the matter. I shall give the hon. Lady further information as soon as I can.
I think that everything I have said and done already shows my wish that the Select Committee dealing with the Nolan recommendations should proceed with all appropriate speed when its membership has been appointed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: A number of hon. Members are standing. It may not be possible to call them all unless they put brisk questions. I ask for one question only, please, from now on and I am sure that the Leader of the House will give a brisk reply.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on Short money—the money paid to the official Opposition? Why


should taxpayers' money be used to flout equal opportunities legislation by means of women-only parliamentary candidate lists?

Mr. Newton: That is a very good question. I am tempted to invite the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to reply. No doubt she will bear my hon. Friend's question in mind.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House helpfully gave us as much information as possible about the week after next as well as next week; that is a helpful development. Does he appreciate that with the publication of the Donaldson report, "Safer Ships: Cleaner Seas", and the Government's response to it, there was considerable interest and concern on both sides of the House about marine safety? Will he now implement the promise of the former Secretary of State for Transport, when he brought the Donaldson report to the House, that we could debate the issue?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that request in mind, especially as I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his remarks. I regard it as my business always to be helpful.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend look shortly to arranging a debate so that we can discuss the parliamentary year? Is he aware that it is absurd that, within the space of three weeks in November, we have 10 days' open debate, but that we then do not get a chance for Government-sponsored debates on many items of good news throughout the rest of the year? Rather than conceding always to Opposition Supply days, will he consider giving us some Government Supply days as well?

Mr. Newton: That is another very good suggestion, which I shall bear in mind. My hon. Friend may be aware that I was giving evidence to the Procedure Committee on some related matters yesterday.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Can the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on Britain's relationship with and future in the International Labour Organisation? He will be aware that this week there has been open warfare between the Foreign Office seeking to safeguard our integrity as an ILO member and the Employment Secretary and his Gayfere street epigone, who are acting to try to pull us out of the ILO. That is causing a great deal of cross-party concern, as is shown by early-day motion 1199.
[That this House, having regard to the role the United Kingdom played in founding the International Labour Organisation in 1919 and considering the ILO's long history of resisting totalitarian and authoritarian governments by advancing on a tri-partite and evolving basis measures to promote employment and social justice, welcomes the continuing contribution that British ministers, employers and trade unions make to the ILO's work; and would consider any threat to continuing British participation at the ILO to be in breach of the United Kingdom's treaty obligations and to the need for continuing dialogue at the global level on the issues currently on the ILO agenda.]
Many hon. Members would like a debate to affirm Britain's continuing commitment to membership of the ILO, which we helped to found.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has been misled. My right hon. Friends are in entire agreement that it is right that our membership of the ILO should be carefully evaluated, but no decision has been taken to withdraw.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House allow us an urgent early debate on the means by which we can bring to account the leadership of the London borough of Islington for the appalling events that have taken place in that Labour-controlled authority's social services department recently?

Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall give careful consideration to the possibility of such a debate, during which that and other comparable matters could be raised.

Ms Margaret Hodge: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to tell the House of the additional cost caused to people by having to take out insurance for their mortgages, the reports in today's press of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux expressing concern and the statement by the chief executive of the Nationwide building society, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the insurance that individuals will have to take out to protect their mortgages?

Mr. Newton: I would observe that there is a debate on housing on an Opposition day next Tuesday, but I would also express surprise at the hon. Lady's nerve. On my hearing of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, by the time that it had finished, it was 40-love to my right hon. Friend and if a fourth question had been asked, it would have been game, set and match.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on local government in London? Is he aware that, apart from the scandals of Islington, we are told that there is corruption and racism in Hackney and that in Lambeth there is £70 million of uncollected rates, council tax and community charge at a time when that council says that it cannot afford decent services?

Mr. Newton: My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) applies also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time next week on the total chaos of railway privatisation, which, in spite of the violent efforts of the present Government, will obviously be absolutely unworkable?

Mr. Newton: Were I to believe that the hon. Lady's suggestions were founded, I might well consider a debate, but I do not, so I shall not.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the state of the performing arts in Britain? Does he agree that such a debate would enable us to raise our continuing concerns about the discretionary grant regime for students of dance and drama and to pay tribute to one British genius, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, whose musicals bring pleasures to millions and massive revenues to the United Kingdom and who only this week won seven Tony awards in the United States for "Sunset Boulevard"?

Mr. Newton: I am happy to join in paying tribute to Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber and will bear in mind that request for a debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we be assured that the Select Committee that is considering the Nolan recommendations will seriously consider meeting and deliberating in public, in the same way as a Standing Committee of the House on legislation or regulatory matters does? It has always been the precedent in respect of privileges and Members' interests that it was necessary to meet in private only when the affairs of individual Members were being discussed, with a view to protecting that Member prior to the Committee finding. Can we have an assurance that that has not been ruled out, because my view is that the wider British public would like to hear the discussions that take place in the Committee?

Mr. Newton: As you will know, Madam Speaker, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, Select Committees have been given no power by the House to deliberate in public. The hon. Gentleman might like to bear in mind the fact that, although the Nolan committee took evidence in public, it certainly did not deliberate in public. Had it done so, I doubt that we would ever have seen a report at all.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the costs of doctors in parallel practices—it seems that doctor A can spend three times as much as doctor B on a similar number of patients but with less effect—with a view to establishing the effectiveness of fundholding in extending services to patients at a sound cost?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question reveals one of the advantages of the new arrangements, in that they enable such questions to be raised. However, I cannot promise an immediate debate.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the new Committee on Nolan's recommendations produces a report to be debated before the summer recess? Will he use his best offices to ensure that the report deals with the merits and demerits of proceeding by way of legislation rather than resolution of the House? Finally, will he use his very best offices to ensure that that Committee, unlike many of its predecessors, is not stuffed full of Conservatives with vested interests up to their eyeballs?

Mr. Newton: As the membership of the Committee has not yet been established, although its terms of reference have been agreed by the House, it would clearly be wrong and absurd for me to attempt to say this afternoon what the Committee will or will not do at any particular point in time.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must have a debate on social services in Islington? I stress the issue because I wonder whether he has read the appalling report about the children in Islington's care who have been subjected to gross sexual abuse. The leader of the council at the time and who was responsible is now the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). Does my right hon. Friend agree that she should apologise to the House and explain what went wrong?

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will have heard, I have already said twice that I am sympathetic to the possibility of a debate in which such matters might be raised.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I should be grateful if the Leader of the House gave early consideration to a debate on today's announcement about the massive pay increase for the Director General of Gas Supply, Clare Spottiswoode. A number of hon. Members have already been approached by constituents who feel that it is a public affront. Could we have an early opportunity to articulate those matters in the House?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's request, but point out that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is due to be answering questions next Wednesday.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on what is going on in the Select Committee on Members' Interests, because it seems that some Opposition Members are failing to attend and do their duty, failing to consider the complaints made against the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader of the Opposition and are acting on behalf of a newspaper in pursuing a libel action? A newspaper libelled an hon. Member, but Opposition Members seem to be supporting the newspaper in what should be a matter for the courts in due course. Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the statements by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in the press today are incorrect and should be condemned?

Mr. Newton: Any attempt to prevent Select Committees from undertaking proper inquiries that they have been asked to undertake or to go outside the proceedings of those Committees is something that I am sure the House wishes not to happen. Beyond that, I do not think that I am in a position to comment on what my hon. Friend said.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us time to debate those matters next week? The Committee is in a state of deadlock. The Labour members of that Committee have tried hard for five months to get it to look after its procedures, take account of precedent and do its duty, but have been stymied at every turn by the presence of a Government Whip, which has made it impossible for us to do our duty. In the end, we felt that we had to come out because we could not be party to a Conservative stitch-up on one of the most important issues facing the House this Session.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has in fact confirmed what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, which was that she is blocking the work of a properly constituted Committee of the House.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend will probably share my concern at the fact that more and more decisions affecting the lives of our fellow countrymen are made under treaty and royal prerogative. We should not be careless in considering those matters. Will he therefore undertake to give the House an opportunity to debate the progress made by the reflections group as it progresses towards the intergovernmental conference next year? It is important that we are given an opportunity to monitor that progress and to debate matters as they arise. We should do our level best to remove from


people the frustration that they undoubtedly feel as a result of so many decisions being made by treaty rather than as a result of a vote in the House.

Mr. Newton: I would certainly anticipate that the House and Parliament will have a number of opportunities for relevant discussions on the matter. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), gave evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation this morning on one of the meetings earlier this week.

Mr. Harry Barnes: At long last, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has come out of Committee, despite considerable attempts by the Government—on a duly constituted Committee of the House—to stop the progress of the Bill. Will the Leader of the House provide an opportunity for Report and the remaining stages of the Bill—which is supported widely in the country, progressed to Committee following a 175 to nil vote in the House and has supporters from all political parties—to be considered, so that the Bill can progress to another place?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has—not unreasonably—asked me almost exactly the same question on innumerable occasions. I am not in a position to add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the amusement industry, which employs hundreds of people in my constituency and thousands throughout the country? Does he agree that such a debate would provide an opportunity for Labour Members to explain their curious policies towards the industry? Those policies were recently brought to my attention in a copy of a letter sent to the British Amusement Catering Trades Association—the trade association of the coin-operated amusement machine industry—by a senior Labour Member, former Cabinet Minister and adviser to the present Labour leader. The letter says:
I myself regard amusement arcades as wholly undesirable and nothing would give me more pleasure than for them to be taxed out of existence.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an extraordinary statement, and should not the House be told whether it properly reflects Labour policy?

Mr. Newton: I can imagine that the statement would not be greeted with enthusiasm in the town that my hon. Friend represents. While I cannot promise a debate on the matter, it seems like a splendid subject for a Wednesday morning.

Mr. David Winnick: May we have a statement next week on the Government's attitude to the Scott inquiry, in view of the fact that not only has the inquiry itself been criticised by the Government and their supporters—if not too publicly—but the distinguished judge himself? The Government and their supporters are concerned about scandals for which the House has no responsibility. Why do not the Government concentrate on scandals for which they are responsible, such as selling arms to Iraq prior to the Gulf war? Why are they attacking the Scott inquiry and the judge?

Mr. Newton: The matter was raised with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. I thought that his answers were entirely straightforward and clear-cut, and I do not intend to add to them.

Mr. James Clappison: May I support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for a debate on the Select Committee on Members' Interests? What redress is available to members of that Committee when a newspaper—aided and abetted by a member of the Committee—makes a series of misrepresentations about the Committee, including that one member of the Committee was appointed to intervene in an inquiry, when in fact the member had been appointed long before the complaint was made and the inquiry begun?
The newspaper also stated that the Committee was not investigating one of the two allegations that was before it when it is doing so. Has not the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) attempted to discredit the Select Committee in conjunction with a newspaper that is itself a party to a libel action? Furthermore, given that, throughout its deliberations, the Committee's detailed proceedings have appeared in that newspaper bearing the interpretation that the hon. Member for Wallasey put on them, it is important that the House knows what the relationship is in that case. May we have a debate on it?

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will have heard, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has already confirmed that she, as it were, seeks to frustrate the work of the Committee. Perhaps she would care to confirm the rest of my hon. Friend's interpretation.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The Leader of the House will be aware of the case of my constituent, Private Lee Clegg; his case was reviewed by the Northern Ireland Life Sentence Review Board on Monday. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement to the House on the recommendations of the Life Sentence Review Board to prevent any more anguish to Private Lee Clegg or his family, and to meet the great interest that the British public have shown in that case?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Looking at the next fortnight's business, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has left enough flexibility in the programme to allow for occasional statements, as they may be required, by Her Majesty's Government on the evolving situation in Bosnia? During the Falklands war, for example, either the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary regularly came to the House to reassure hon. Members and, through them, the public at large. It will be necessary to inform hon. Members and to clarify the Government's policy, especially given that British lives are involved.

Mr. Newton: I cannot say that I have planned the business with a view to allowing for such statements, but the record will show that I have made provision for them whenever it has seemed to those of us at the Dispatch Box that they were required. I note my hon. Friend's concern.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the record 44 per cent. increase in Northumbrian Water's profits, which was announced today, and the fact


that it is the fifth water company to announce record increases in its profits one year after the price review that was supposed to keep prices for customers down, will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the total failure to offer customers value for money of last year's price review of the water and sewerage industry?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady might like to note that, over the next five years, the industry will share £90 million of the benefits of efficiency savings with its customers, which means £32.50 for each of its nearly 3 million customers.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on Britain's membership of the International Labour Organisation? Although that organisation has a budget of £177 million, of which Britain contributes £8 million, its only achievement seems to be that it is an international quango that allows trade unionists to go on freebies at the taxpayer's expense and is supported by the Labour party. Is it not high time that we withdrew from that organisation and the House had a chance to debate it?

Mr. Newton: I have already told the House that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Employment Secretary agree that our membership of the ILO should be carefully evaluated. They will no doubt take account of points such as those raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Following the public humiliation that the Government's rail privatisation suffered in the Court of Appeal in Scotland this week when they sought to circumvent section 27 of the Railways Act 1993, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the chaos that has ensued from the Government's proposals with regard to the Fort William sleeper and other rail privatisation proposals?

Mr. Newton: The subject of that court action was not a privatised body but British Rail.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate not on the Select Committee on Members' Interests but on whether we should establish another Committee of Privileges to look into the activities of some members of the Members' Interests Committee? Is it not a breach of privilege to divulge papers—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is alleging breach of privilege, which is a most serious accusation. As he knows, he must write to me if he wishes to allege any breach of privilege whatever by any Member of this House. He should now think about it carefully and rephrase his question or write to me.

Mr. Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend to provide time for a debate, to discover whether we can establish a Committee to investigate those matters?

Mr. Newton: As you will know, Madam Speaker, you have already referred a number of matters to the Committee of Privileges, of which I have the privilege of being the Chairman. Were you to ask us to do something else, no doubt we would.

Mr. Don Touhig: There are fresh signs that the United Kingdom economy may follow the United States economy in slowing down. The Central Statistical Office forecasts show a fall for the 10th month in a row, which suggests that the economy may be faltering

Mr. David Shaw: We can read. Mr. Touhig: Fine; I will read. Hon. Members: Reading.

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me give a little guidance to the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of business questions is to ask the Leader of the House for a debate. One begins by saying that, then one has two lines on why one needs that debate.

Mr. Shaw: One line.

Madam Speaker: One line, or not more than two lines.

Mr. Touhig: I appreciate your guidance, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. There are further signs that house building is decreasing again, compared with the previous quarter. Does the Leader of the House recognize—[Interruption.] I am coming to the end. Does the Leader of the House recognise that his answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood. If a debate is sought next week, the Member begins by asking for a debate next week because of a particular situation, and thereafter paraphrases what the problem is and why the debate must take place. He is not in an argument with the Leader of the House. He is asking the Leader of the House for a debate.

Mr. Touhig: I appreciate your guidance, Madam Speaker. I shall certainly learn from your guiding hand. My point is that the Leader of the House should urgently arrange a debate on the economy so that the House—

Madam Speaker: Well done.

Mr. Touhig: I would have got there in the end, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman should arrange that so that the House may debate the appalling mess that the economy is in as a result of the Government's actions.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to pick an argument with the Leader of the House, and he very nearly succeeded, except that I can draw attention to the fact that I have already provided, at the request of Her Majesty's Opposition, for a debate about housing next Tuesday.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have a debate next week about the problems of paedophiles travelling overseas and committing offences against children in other countries? Will we be able to give time to the Bill that is currently in the House of Lords and consider the possibility of prosecuting people? My right hon. Friend will know that the all-party street children group is preparing reports on those matters, and that there is serious worry about such matters internationally.

Mr. Newton: I am of course aware of those reports, and I am sure that they will be carefully considered, as will what my hon. Friend has said, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

English Football Supporters

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Tony Banks: In this Adjournment debate, I wish to raise the subject of the treatment of English football supporters abroad. It is best to declare my interests at the outset. I am a member of the board of Chelsea Pitch Owners, which earns me no remuneration, expenses or, I might say, even thanks. Secondly, I am a Chelsea season-ticket holder, which costs me £500 a year.
In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in the previous debate, I should declare also that the Chelsea goalkeeper is a Russian. His name is Dimitri Kharin. As far as I am aware, he is not part of the Marxist-Leninist plot of which we have been hearing. If he is, I await next season with great interest.
I have been an avid Chelsea supporter for more than 40 years. During that long period, we have not been spoilt with success. If one adds to that my membership of the Labour party, I suppose that one can see that life appears to have dealt me something of a bum hand, but, in politics as in football, it is best to travel optimistically.
I last secured an Adjournment debate on the subject of football and the behaviour of football supporters abroad and at home on 19 April 1985. It might sound somewhat immodest but my speech on that occasion is worth a revisit. Among my recommendations to Neil Macfarlane, then Minister with responsibility for sport, were the following. I said that grounds
should be all seating, covered and divided into small secure sections with closed circuit television."—[Official Report. 19 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 596.]
I said that the courts should impose more custodial sentences on convicted hooligans and community work orders on match days for offenders, that clubs should provide many more voluntary stewards for self-policing of their crowds, that clubs should operate membership schemes, without which admission to grounds would be denied, that the police should set up specialised teams of officers to provide intelligence on known troublemakers, and that the police should travel with supporters to away matches and brief other local police forces.
I specifically urged that on the Minister in column 601. He said that he would draw the Home Secretary's attention to my suggestion, but it took until March 1990—some five years later—for the national football intelligence unit to be set up. It took until 1989, under the terms of Football Spectators Act 1989, for exclusion orders to be implemented for convicted hooligans. Regrettably and tragically, it took the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989 to produce the Taylor report and the requirement for all-seater stadiums.
I mention those items of 10 years ago not to state my claim for being particularly original in my thinking but simply to illustrate that, if only Ministers had listened more carefully to those many football supporters who know something about the game as a spectator sport, so much trouble could have been avoided in recent years and possibly many lives could have been saved.
Politicians who know little or nothing about football but who do not hesitate to rush into television studios or into print in reaction to a particular event are a wretched


nuisance. Similarly, legislation that follows in the same knee-jerk fashion is often far more trouble than help. I yield to no one in the House or even outside in my condemnation of those brain-dead louts, fascists and drunken troublemakers who have done so much damage to our national game. That is what my 1985 debate was all about, warning Ministers about events that were then taking place—to which no great political attention was being paid—and the likely consequences of a lack of action.
There are times when it does not give one any satisfaction to say, "I told you so," even in politics, but the trouble is that the activities of that small and unrepresentative minority have led to the reputation of English football supporters as the scum of the footballing world. I stress "English" football supporters, because the Scottish, Welsh and Irish supporters enjoy a favourable reputation in football.
The image of the English supporter as a thug has now tragically taken a firm hold in public perception, but the image is simply not the reality in respect of the great majority of football supporters. Most supporters are normal decent people who love their club and the game. They are young, old, black, white, male, female, professional workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, employed and unemployed. Football is a great leveller and people are accepted when they are a club supporter without reservation or qualification.
People do not ask supporters who they are and what they do. They just accept them as football supporters and one of the family. It breaks down class harriers and, for most, engenders a great feeling of camaraderie and togetherness. Those are the realities of football supporting for the great majority, but, regrettably and tragically, it is not true of all supporters. It is that wretched but significant minority that obsesses politicians, the media and the police.
The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to a specific and growing problem, which originates through and in the activities of that minority. In recent months, I have accumulated a disturbing amount of evidence that shows that the image of the English football supporter as a thug is leading to police forces in Europe believing that all travelling supporters are a menace to public safety and that the police can thus deal with them accordingly. Such police forces adopt the attitude that the travelling English supporter left his or her civil and human rights behind on this side of the channel, and that, when they set foot on the continent, the police can declare open season on them.
In the course of my inquiries, I have collected a wide range of personal evidence from individuals and groups, many of whom I know personally, of the most appalling treatment that has been dished out to them by police forces on the continent. My evidence tonight comes essentially from Chelsea and Arsenal supporters following their respective clubs in the European cup winners cup last season.
I am fortunate because I have a lot of time at my disposal, but I do not intend unnecessarily to detain the Minister or the House. I do not apologise for giving the following evidence in some detail because we need it on the record. We need Ministers to listen and to take these matters seriously. Genuine football supporters are deeply angry and hurt that no one seems to want to listen to their

problems or deal with their complaints. They feel that they are perhaps being treated on this side of the channel almost as they are being treated on the other side. The media are very interested when there is violence, but are not interested when it is perpetrated against English citizens abroad.
First, I shall give some details and make some broad general comments that were common to most of the letters that my office has received or that were forwarded to me by supporters and from Arsenal and Chelsea clubs. The first comments relate to the match on 28 February between Club Bruges and Chelsea in Bruges—I was at that match.
Up to 500 Chelsea supporters were herded into a warehouse outside the city in a Belgian police operation before the match. Fans were handcuffed and forced into riot vehicles, with the majority of them seemingly committing the crime of speaking with an English accent. In this giant warehouse, the fans were pushed into huge, purpose-built pens, handcuffed, sprayed with water cannons and offered no food or drink for the next nine hours. At 5 am the following morning, the inmates were deported in handcuffs.
Imagine the rightful outrage there would have been in this country, if the British police had handled visiting foreign supporters in such a way. We would have been right to criticise, but, as the police have told me in discussions, they would not have dreamt of behaving in such a fashion.
One of the letters relating to the warehouse incident comes from Mr. Wheeler of Earslfield, London SW 18, who organised a trip to Bruges for 28 business executives. Nine members of the party—none was wearing Chelsea paraphernalia—were arrested outside the stadium about half an hour before kick-off when asked if they were English. They were thrown into a police van, and one was attacked with a baton. All the fans were told that they had been arrested because their tickets were forgeries, but all the tickets had been bought from an official source. The man who bought them is a travel agent and he knew that they were genuine, but the Belgian police were saying, "That's a forgery," and tearing them up in the supporters' faces. What could they do? The evidence had gone; there was nothing they could do.
Those business men were among the 500 Chelsea supporters taken to the warehouse on the outskirts of Bruges and held for nine hours—obviously, they all missed the match. They were not given any food or water, there were no seats, and they were forced to urinate on the spot when nature called because no facilities were provided.
Miss McDonnell of Palmers Green, London N13, witnessed camera crews following the Belgian riot police and waiting in anticipation for something to happen. She said:
I watched from a bar window as Belgian police hit out at people for merely walking along the street. These scenes were later shown on News at Ten and Sky News.
I was at that match and television companies that were not the slightest bit interested in football or the game went there looking for trouble. They wanted to broadcast scenes of English fans rioting on breakfast television the following morning. If one waits and provokes long enough, one will get precisely what one wants. Surely that


is not a responsible attitude for the media to take, and I am not prone to criticising the media either in the House or outside.
I heard from Mr. Hugo from London N5, whose son went to Bruges with two friends on a four-day break that coincided with the match. Two days before the match, they were in a bar when Belgian police entered, apparently shouting, "All English outside." His son and the two friends were arrested and detained without food or drink for 18 hours. They were
paraded in front of what seemed to be a stage-managed party of press and TV crews.
They were then deported in handcuffs.
I have also received letters about the Real Zaragoza v. Chelsea match on 6 April. Again, I will go over the common reported occurrences in all the letters from Chelsea supporters. The police emptied the contents of fans' bags on to the floor during the search, taking batteries from cameras and discarding them in a heap on the floor—apparently, a move to stop fans using the batteries as missiles. Fans with tickets for the upper tier of the official supporters section were forced to sit in the lower tier—the section of the stadium where the trouble erupted, as I shall explain. There were seemingly motiveless attacks by Spanish police on Chelsea supporters up to three hours prior to the match.
I have heard from a number of people who were giving independent evidence, which I could cross-relate. Young fans—one was a nine-year-old—who travelled to the game with their parents, were manhandled by the Spanish police officers. One youngster had his hag, which he had just bought, ripped open and another was struck with a police baton. Subsequently, his father was beaten up by police officers as a result of his understandable reaction to the attack on his young son. I have evidence from other people who witnessed the scene and who did not know the man or his son. They wrote to me independently and I was able to compare three or four letters, all of which said precisely the same thing. There could not have been any collusion between all those people.
The organisation of seat allocation by ticket number was non-existent, with no apparent control over the situation. Fans were forced to sit in areas far away from their allocated seats, with many becoming separated. I experienced that in Bruges. I was told, "Just get over there." There was no question of the fans being segregated, or of there being any coherent plan to get them to their allocated seats. It was a disgraceful situation and it got even worse when the Chelsea supporters went to Real Zaragoza.
The general feeling among fans sitting in the lower tier, where so much trouble was shown on television, was that the police charged at them for no reason after Zaragoza scored its third goal. A minority of fans in that section then threw chairs as a response to the police charge. Afterwards, I saw independent footage of the scene and that is exactly what happened. The fans were attacked and, having retreated, in the end threw seats at the police, which gave them the reason to attack yet again. Those fans who sat still and tried to ignore and distance themselves from what was going on—Home Office evidence says that that is exactly what they should do—were then attacked by the police officers as they ran through to get at those throwing the seats, who were provoked into taking that rather irresponsible attitude. Of

course, it is easy to say now that one should never be provoked, but unfortunately at the time it was advice that was not easily followed.
The police were undoubtedly attacking innocent fans, who were simply trying to ignore or get away from the situation. The Spanish police prevented official Chelsea stewards from entering the lower tier to calm the situation. After the match, two fans were brutally attacked by the police when querying where their coaches were situated.
Those general comments were in a range of letters. On the specific points, Mr. Germaine from Harold Hill in Romford travelled with his wife and three children on official supporters club tickets on the "Green flight". He had tickets to the top tier in the Chelsea section with the official party, but was forced by the police into the lower tier that I just described. He was hit with police batons nine times, while he sat with his family in the stand, trying to ignore what was going on. He decided to leave the stadium to protect the safety of his family, but was again attacked when leaving by the Spanish police. The incident has brought great distress to his wife and his young children.
Mr. Williams from Lancing in West Sussex—a company director who travelled with the official club trip—was attacked by Spanish police as he went into a refreshment bar at the back of the lower tier just after half time. He was hit with batons and suffered severe bruising to his legs. He said:
I was a lone figure posing no threat to anyone.
W. E. Fowler from Stanwell in Middlesex, a Chelsea football club steward on the trip, claims that the Chelsea stewards in the upper tier were prevented by the police from going into the lower tier to calm the violence.
Mr. Ragot of Westbere road NW2, said that, on returning to his seat in the lower tier of the Chelsea section after visiting the lavatory, he was attacked by police with batons and ejected. While pleading with police outside the stadium that his jacket and passport were still on his seat, he was hit on the back of the head by a policeman on horseback and knocked unconscious. He had to go to Zaragoza hospital to receive treatment for his injury.
Mr. Bargery of Slough in Berkshire witnessed a missile thrown from the Spanish section of the crowd on to the lower tier of Chelsea supporters. As they complained, the police became angry and started
clubbing any and everyone they felt fit to.
Mr. Hedley from Cambridge street, Pimlico and his two friends received a severe beating from Spanish police outside the stadium before the game. Consequently, they missed most of the first half of the match. Mr. Hedley needed medical treatment for his injuries and his two friends were very badly bruised around their backs and legs. A friend travelling with Mr. Dibble from Worcester Park saw a young boy hit with a baton outside the stadium before kick-off. The young boy's father obviously became upset with the policeman and he was beaten up by a group of Spanish police officers as a consequence of his reaction. As I have already mentioned, that case has been cross-referenced.
Mr. O'Rourke from Wembley in Middlesex had a ticket for the upper tier with the official party but was forced by the police to sit in the lower tier. Many people tried to sit in their allocated seats but were forced into the lower tier, where the trouble occurred. As the trouble erupted, Mr.
O'Rourke was attacked by two police officers while sitting in his seat. He lost his glasses and suffered bruising to his shoulders and legs.
Mr. Harrison from Lower Bourne, Farnham, paid more than £300 for himself and a friend to watch the match. He said that they witnessed good-humoured Chelsea fans attacked by police outside a bar three hours prior to the game. Mr. Harrison also had a ticket for the upper tier. He was told by the Spanish authorities that he could sit anywhere that he liked and he decided to sit in the less-crowded lower tier. That was a mistake on his part. As the trouble erupted, he stayed in his seat, only to be attacked by two policemen. He suffered bruising to his kidneys and back. He and his friend decided to leave the match early for their own safety. These people paid good money to go to that match. They wanted to see football, they wanted to enjoy Zaragoza and have good time. They did not and they came home very bitter indeed.
Mr. Goodwin of Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth—not a place one associates with hooligans—had a ticket for the upper tier but was told by Spanish police that it was impossible for him to sit there. The entire contents of his bag were emptied on to the floor during a police search procedure. He said:
For the first time in my life I was frightened for my own safety and attempted to leave the lower tier through the sole available exit. Upon doing so I was confronted by more Spanish police who, rather than assist in pacifying a situation, seemed intent on inflaming it by further liberally indiscriminate use of their batons.
They refused to let anybody leave, and anyone who did manage to evade them and reach the concourse ran the risk of further beatings.
I feel sure that it was solely due to my knowledge of the Spanish language that I was struck only twice before finding comparative safety in a toilet cubicle. I feel fortunate, unlike two other innocents who I saw left lying in pools of blood in the concourse. I and these others were not mindless right wing thugs, merely Chelsea Supporters fleeing for our own safety.
Mr. Kyte, a senior manager for London Transport, and his brother paid £235 for the trip and travelled with the official club party. They saw only 25 minutes of the game because of a police attack on them while they sat in the lower tier of the Chelsea section. His brother had to go to hospital in England suffering from severe concussion after having bad head pains and sickness on the return journey.
Mr. Robinson, a solicitor and secretary of the Diadora football league, said that many of the fans in the lower tier where the trouble erupted were sitting in their seats holding their hands up in an obvious sign of peaceful intention. Many of those fans, however, were still struck by passing police officers. He also commented that alcohol was freely on sale inside the stadium during the match, which is in direct contravention of FIFA regulations, about which I shall say more shortly.
Mr. Steve Frankham, a Conservative voter, is a personal friend of mine. I do not normally confess to having Conservative voters as personal friends. He is a quantity surveyor and a very successful business man. He witnessed two young Chelsea fans being brutally attacked by Spanish police and saw blows inflicted to their faces, legs and backs. He said that the fans were knocked to the ground by the sheer force of the blows. The two were merely asking the police for directions to their coach.
Miss McDonnell of Palmers Green has not missed a home or away game for 17 years. Well done, Miss McDonnell! She witnessed a fan knocked unconscious by

police while standing next to a refreshment kiosk in the stadium. The gentlemen had to receive mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Inside the stadium, Mr. Thompson from Wokingham witnessed a young Chelsea supporter being beaten by a group of police officers as he tried to retrieve a packet a crisps that he dropped down a flight of stairs. Steve Frankham also saw that incident and told me about it.
Let us turn to general comments about the Sampdoria v. Arsenal match in Genoa on 20 April. Six coaches full of Arsenal supporters were escorted by Italian riot police from Genoa airport to a large car park just outside the city. The coaches were forced to stay in the car park for six hours from 1100 to 1700 hours. At the site there were only basic refreshments and WC facilities available. Many of the supporters were due to have a three-course meal in Genoa as part of their travel package. The supporters were travelling to enjoy a good time, which is what I like doing when I travel to Chelsea away matches. None of that happened because the coaches were taken straight to the stadium by riot police and escorted directly back to Genoa airport after the match finished. I have heard a number of complaints about people taking their families for what would have been a good night out. It turned out to be a nightmare.
I have a number of commonly reported occurrences from Arsenal supporters about the Arsenal v. Real Zaragoza match at Parc des Princes on 10 May in Paris. They described the failure of French police to help Arsenal supporters obtain easy access to the ground and easy departure from it and said that alcohol was sold inside the stadium. Again, that was an infringement of FIFA regulations. There was an apparent lack of Arsenal FC and French stewards inside the stadium. The clubs are responsible for such matters. They must send more of their own stewards to the matches. What is more, when possible, those stewards should be bilingual. CS gas was sprayed at Arsenal fans inside the stadium after the match.
Questions were raised about safety and access to the stadium. A lack of turnstiles caused a crush of supporters at the entrance. Again, such matters are covered by FIFA regulations on safety in stadiums. We must ask whether the Parc des Princes is an acceptable venue for World cup matches. When I talked to police officers in this country, one of the complaints that they made was about the appalling facilities in a number of such stadiums. We are often seduced into thinking that all stadiums on the continent are wonderful palaces of facilities for spectators. That is not true in many respects. They do not have the facilities to segregate supporters like we have in this country.
The following are some of the letters that I received concerning the Arsenal v. Zaragoza match. The brother of Mrs. Jeans of Lissenden gardens in London NW5 attended the match. As he was returning to his coach after the match, he was attacked by a French police officer. Apparently, he was walking too slowly. He suffered bruising to his legs. A family friend of Mrs. Jeans also attended the match and reported that Arsenal supporters were locked in the stadium for 35 minutes after the end of the match, which is not unusual.
Anyone who has travelled with away supporters realises just how appallingly—sometimes—they are treated. In this country, the police do not attack, but supporters are often kept standing, kept waiting, are escorted and rushed from the station to the ground and


never allowed to act in a civilised fashion. Frankly, if one starts acting in a brutal fashion towards people, one should not he over-surprised if the response is similar. I am more surprised at the way in which people do not react. Certainly, when people act brutally towards me, I get exceedingly angry and aggressive indeed. I do not attack anyone, other than verbally, but I am certainly incredibly frustrated and angry by such treatment.
To return to the comments about the Zaragoza match, the fans were kept inside the ground for 35 minutes, which is not unusual. But some of the fans were then sprayed with CS gas by the French police. I assume that it was the French riot police, the CRS. The French police are not noted for being especially delicate in their handling of individuals. That was no way for English citizens to be treated in Paris. Many women and children were in that section of the stadium and were scared and bemused by the events that I have just described.
French police in riot uniform refused to help or give any directions to Mrs. Gray of Highbury, London N5 who was trying to go to her hotel after the match. In her letter, she also queried safety in the stadium. She said that chaos was caused in the access areas to the stadium, where an apparent lack of turnstiles to filter supporters entering the ground caused a bottleneck. Mr. Barford of Enfield in Middlesex noticed the lack of Arsenal stewards in the stadium and identified safety problems such as the small access area to the ground causing a crush of fans, as already described.
Mr. Martin of Hertford discovered confusion among Arsenal supporters who were trying to find their seats in the stadium, due to lack of stewards. He was also concerned about alcohol being sold inside the stadium. Mr. Nelson of Hornsey road. London N7 went to the match with his 13-year-old son; a proper and fitting thing for a father and son to do. After the match, the section of the stadium where he was sitting was locked. After a short while, a minority of the Arsenal supporters became impatient, as I have described, and, as a result, the French police fired CS gas into the crowd, causing great distress among fans in that section, many of them women and children. Mr. Nelson's son was affected badly by the gas. He was temporarily blinded and, being an asthma sufferer, he had extreme difficulties in breathing.
That is the evidence; I could have gone on a lot longer. The evidence is there and I have extracted the bare bones to give a taste to the House. Following the evidence I received, I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, with whom I also raised the matter directly, about the treatment of British citizens. The response from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary can only be described as pathetic.
The Prime Minister is, of course, a fellow Chelsea supporter, although of less vintage than me. I was there for all Chelsea's championship matches in 1954–55; it is difficult to forget Chelsea's championship year because it is the only one we have had. The Prime Minister has told me that he started to support Chelsea the following season. I was beginning to get rather worried because we have many similarities. We both come from Brixton, we were both on Lambeth council and we are both Chelsea supporters and Surrey supporters. I took great consolation from finding that he stood at the opposite end of Stamford Bridge. Clearly, the divisions were evident even then.
This fellow Chelsea supporter and Prime Minister, for the time being, wrote a letter which I found totally unacceptable. He said that he shared my concern about
those who masquerade as supporters
and who cause trouble. I condemn them unequivocally. However, he then said:
I cannot comment on the circumstances of individual incidents, but I do know that where disorder occurs at football matches, both here and abroad, innocent people can be caught up in the measures taken to deal with it.
And some. The letter continued:
Although… it will he of little comfort to those concerned, I would stress that the real responsibility for what occurred in Spain lies squarely with those who deliberately set out to create mayhem instead of watching football.
Absolute nonsense.
Who briefed the Prime Minister? From where did he get that impression? All the evidence is to the contrary, yet the Prime Minister wrote such a letter. If I were him—I have offered to show him the information—I would sack the person who gave me the duff information. I asked him whether he would be prepared to take evidence from the spotters—the police officers who travelled from Fulham police station to Spain with supporters—and from an officer from the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service who was there to act as an intelligence co-ordinator alongside the Spanish police. The Prime Minister said that they could not provide a full report on the actions of the Spanish police, and that it would not be right to ask them to do so.
I do not want to invoke the words of Palmerston: "Civis Romanus sum." I do not know whether Mr. Palmerston was a football supporter. Perhaps he supported the Corinthians or the Royal Engineers, although they were probably formed after his time. I know that they won cup finals in the 1870s. What Palmerston was saying was that English citizens had a right to expect their Government to defend them, and not to dismiss their justified arguments and to say, "Sorry, it is nothing to do with us. This is something that you just happened to fall foul of because the Spanish police were dealing with problems." The Spanish police were not dealing with problems; the Spanish police were creating the problems. We demand action from the Government, following Mr. Palmerston's observations.
If the Government do not want to listen to Mr. Palmerston, they should look at the front page of an old passport. I often wonder whether the words mean anything; it is clear that they do not if one is a football supporter. The passport states:
Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
That is just words—just a load of old garbage. If people wave that at a Spanish policeman, a French policeman or a Belgian policeman, the police will crack their heads open. So much for the power of the British passport which once, as they used to say, caused Johnny Foreigner to fall to his knees. I do not, of course, expect that sort of attitude. I am not some kind of neo-imperialist. All I am is someone who says that English citizens travelling abroad have a right to be protected from brutality wherever it comes from and that the British Government have a responsibility to protect them.
The letter from the Home Secretary was essentially couched in the language used in the letter I received from the Prime Minister. Obviously, they had cross-checked. It was an inadequate response.
May I make some positive proposals to the Minister? I realise that he is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister and that many of my proposals affect the responsibilities of his colleagues in the Department of National Heritage and the Home Office. As in the debate I had 10 years ago, I want to be as constructive as I can he—[Interruption.] You will he glad to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my drink is not alcohol.
First, to deal with some of the activities, we should ban the carrying of Union or national flags that are adulterated with the names of clubs or towns. These days, the Union flag so often has the name of a club or the name of a town across it. The flag is supposed to be a unifying and not a divisive symbol. Was what I just did—taking a drink—in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If I did it again, I should not like to find myself falling foul of you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The tradition of the House is that hon. Members should come here fully watered and victualled before they make their speeches. I hope that hon. Members will maintain that tradition. Those who suddenly get a frog in their throat may, of course, briefly take water to keep them going. To help the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that a degree of calmness in presentation means that the voice will last longer.

Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would never want to fall foul of you intentionally. I was wondering what on earth, if hon. Members have to come in here watered and victualled, those two decanters were doing sitting on the Front Bench. Obviously there is one rule for Back Benchers and another rule for Front Benchers.
The second point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that Front Benchers get a little more excited than Back Benchers do.

Mr. Banks: I often find that excitement makes the juices flow more readily than does the more staid approach. I am, however, grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the situation.
Banning the carrying of Union or national flags adulterated with the names of clubs would be something. I have called for it before and I think that action should be taken. It is offensive to people to see such flags. The flag then becomes a divisive rather than a unifying symbol.
Secondly, we should cease the practice of playing national anthems before football matches. No other sport does this. I cannot understand why this happens in football matches when it does not happen before cricket matches or rugby matches.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): It does sometimes.

Mr. Banks: I do not recall anyone playing the national anthem before a cricket match. Was the national anthem played up in Leeds before the start of the test match against the West Indies today?

Mr. Baldry: I do not know whether the West Indies has a national anthem.

Mr. Banks: The Minister's comment is interesting. What about Australia, then, or New Zealand? The Minister knows that the national anthem is not played at cricket matches. Why is it played at football matches? This is not an attempt to get at the national anthem, but a suggestion. Rival supporters whistling and jeering the respective anthems does not get the match off to a very good start. Again, as you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am getting over-excited.
Thirdly, there should he a crackdown on the sale of tee-shirts, leaflets and badges—all the rubbish that is sold outside grounds—that carry racist slogans. In August 1991, the Government announced with a great flurry of publicity that running on to the pitch and chanting indecent or racist slogans would be criminal offences. How many arrests have we had for those offences since 1991? It is not good enough to pass new laws. We need to ensure that they are properly and adequately enforced.
Fourthly, English clubs must insist that FIFA enforces its own rules and the European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour. When I go to matches in which we are playing an overseas club, the no-drinks rule is enforced rigidly, from the directors right the way through. The continental clubs are ignoring the rules on the sale of alcohol. Again, we start to ask why we should follow the rules when the others do not. We should follow the rules, and, more to the point, so should they. Frankly, that is something that the Minister should raise through the Foreign Office and other agencies.
Fifthly, part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 gave the courts the power to make restriction orders to prevent convicted hooligans from travelling to key football matches outside England and Wales. Statistics obtained through the answers to parliamentary questions show that only seven such orders were made between 1991 and 1994. That is a joke. How can Ministers expect us to take those regulations and rules seriously if they are not being adequately enforced?
Sixthly, we must seek changes in the legislation to allow those who cause trouble abroad to be prosecuted in the English courts. I know that this introduces a new concept, but it is about time it was seriously examined. We must also encourage authorities on the continent to prosecute those who are responsible for causing trouble within their jurisdictions.
It is offensive to see thugs—I am talking about genuine thugs who are properly arrested, not the innocent people whom I was describing earlier—getting back to Heathrow or leaving a ferry and giving the television cameras V-signs and fascist salutes, cocking a snook at authority in this country. It sends the wrong message altogether and is extremely offensive.
Seventhly, I would like to say a word about the role of the media. They seem to be interested only in the violent minority. I have found it very difficult to get the media interested in the sort of the cases that I have been describing at length. The media do not seem to be interested in the violence perpetrated on the innocent. They hype violence and inflame the situation.
One of the complaints that was made in Zaragoza was that the local press there was reporting what the national press in this country was saying about all the hooligans who were going there. People, and the police force, in


Zaragoza became worried that a load of barbarians would turn up and trash their town. That hyped up the police, made them extremely edgy, and they overreacted. The media have to understand the impact they have when such alarmist, hyped-up, unnecessary stories are conveyed to the country that is about to receive the visiting supporters.
I come to the most important part of my contribution. The role of the national football intelligence unit is crucial. It must be given the resources to extend its work. I have been talking to people involved and it is amazing that there is only a handful of officers—six or seven—in the NFIU. I had thought that there were loads.
In the Metropolitan police area, those officers are complemented by an officer in each police division in which there is a football club. I presume that that applies throughout the country. Even if one takes account of the 92 football clubs in the English leagues, that does not amount to a great number of officers to deal with a crucial public concern. It is no good politicians getting worried and making statements about what is going on and the media reporting and amplifying these events in great depth if we do not give the police the resources that they need to deal with the matter.
Each police force has its own spotters who go to club matches, but they are junior officers, constables. No more than two local officers, senior though they may be, go over to liaise with their counterparts on the continent before a match. They can go only by invitation. I mentioned the Spanish, the Belgians and the Italians, none of whom have the equivalent of our NFIU. Only the Dutch, who have a similar problem with football hooligans, have such a unit.
It is incumbent on Ministers to take some initiatives. First, the NFIU must receive more resources if, as politicians, we are going to complain about football violence and the behaviour of football supporters at home and abroad.
Secondly, Ministers should ask their European counterparts to allow police officers from continental countries to come to Britain for training in football crowd control techniques. Our police officers are probably now the best in the world at football crowd control. No doubt we all regret that they had to acquire that expertise, but at least they have it, and it should be shared among their continent counterparts.
We must send far more police officers to matches abroad to accompany supporters. Wherever possible, the officers should be bilingual—people who can get involved in what is going on, not to dictate to police forces abroad but to assist them to ensure that some of the problems that I have described do not recur.
We should also send police officers in uniform. I know that this is not customary, but I have checked the matter out and there do not seem to be any great obstacles standing in the way of that. It would comfort and perhaps control English travelling supporters to see English police officers in uniform with them. It would have been reassuring, certainly, for those innocent parties that I described earlier if they could have gone to an English police officer and made their complaints rather than suffering in the way that they did.
There is an understandable lack of expertise among European police forces. They have not been forced to acquire the detailed expertise that, regrettably, we have had to. Because they lack expertise, they tend to

compensate by relying on policing in numbers. That, in turn, creates problems of intimidation and confusion. To be confronted by massed ranks of police officers when you travel to a match is not a very comfortable position.
One of the other difficulties experienced by NFIU officers is that the police forces with which they liaise prior to matches are often not the police who end up policing the crowd. That is hardly useful.
In the end, essentially, we in this country are the problem, so we should be prepared to contribute far more to the control and resolution of the problem. The Government must take the situation seriously.
The responsible Ministers,—I wrote directly to the Prime Minister—should he prepared to call for reports on the matters that I have raised tonight. They should call for evidence from those few police officers who were at the matches I have detailed and from our embassy and consulate staff who would have been at them.
I expect the Government to do far more than that. On behalf of the large numbers of decent football supporters who travel abroad, I expect—indeed, I demand—that the British Government defend their rights and correct the wrongs experienced by those British citizens travelling abroad. Those football supporters, those English citizens, have a right to expect action from the Government, and the Government have a duty to respond.

Miss Kate Hoey: I will add only a few words. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on obtaining the debate and on being so clever as to get it on a night when we can go on a little longer.
My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, which has covered a lot of the issues that I wanted to raise. I accept that the Minister may not be able to deal tonight with some of the points that my hon. Friend has raised, and the questions that need to be answered, because it is clear that many of the things which have gone wrong in term of co-ordination and responsibility come under the aegis of the Department of National Heritage, although I am sure that the Minister will have co-ordinated with that Department.
I speak on behalf of the many Arsenal supporters who wrote to me, and I know that many have also written to my hon. Friend. The evidence that my hon. Friend gave about the match in Paris and about the other matches is very clear and we have all seen it. Some of us have also seen that my hon. Friend has a large file on the matter. What have the Government done? This situation has not just arisen—it has been going on for some months. Did any Minister at any state write even one letter or make one telephone call to protest or ask for an explanation from the French authorities, the Spanish authorities or those in any of the other countries where incidents occurred? If not, why not?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is right. Can one think of any other circumstances in which large numbers of people from another European country would be treated in such a way here without it being front page news and roundly condemned? It seems that the Government are not prepared to stand up for English—in this case, they were English—citizens abroad who have clearly been treated deplorably.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that there arc diplomatic reasons for not responding, or that there arc had supporters. We know that there are had supporters, and it is precisely because we want to isolate them that we need to stand up for the genuinely good supporters who did nothing but spend large sums of money and take time off work to enjoy a football match.
I have here evidence to back up everything that my hon. Friend said. One letter relates specifically to the European cup winners' cup final in Paris. My hon. Friend mentioned the state of the ground. I appreciate that it is not really a matter for the Minister tonight, but the football authorities need to be asked why the ground in Paris—the Parc des Princes—was allowed to be used. The available evidence shows that it was not fit even to host a normal match, let alone the final of a major tournament.
I received a detailed letter from Mr. Barford who lives in Enfield. He also wrote to Arsenal and to my hon. Friend. It outlines the way in which fans were treated on the way into the match. Even when they were not being treated badly, the route to the ground calls into question every FIFA rule. It appears that the roads leading to the ground were cordoned off with crash barriers and there was only a very small access area, which meant that people were crushed together. Mr. Barford's letter states:
This was further compounded by ticket holders having to fight their way back through the crowd if they were trying to go down the wrong road and were told to go elsewhere.
Everything points to a lack of clarity about who was taking the decisions at the ground and who was responsible for it. Our football authorities owe it to the people who matter—the supporters—to ask FIFA why the ground, which was clearly not fit to host a major match, was used. At the same match, fans had to go through a small opening in the fence and there was more crushing. Mr. Barford said:
I find it hard to believe that a stadium that hosts international matches does not have any turnstiles, a basic requirement that even non-league football clubs in this country have to have.
Once inside the stadium, there were problems with the stewarding. Many Arsenal stewards travelled with the fans, but were not always in evidence at the ground. There is some uncertainty as to why that happened. It was not because the stewards disappeared to have a nice time watching the match; there seems to have been a lack of understanding about where they were allowed to go and what they were allowed to do. I am sure that the same has happened elsewhere. The final result was that people were unable to find their seats. They were told to sit where they liked, which led to disagreements. The length of time that fans had to stay in the ground after the match also caused a problem.
All that happened to fans of a club which has no history of football hooligans attaching themselves to it. Indeed, the previous year Arsenal was awarded a fair play award for its supporters' behaviour in Europe. Mr. Barford concludes:
I would not attend another football match at this ground",
and says that he would be very hesitant about attending another match in Europe at all. It is sad that many such letters are from people who were travelling to Europe for the first time and who now will never go back.
What do those incidents tell us? The Government are supposed to be interested in bringing the people of Europe together, but for many young people, their first trip abroad to watch a match was ruined and they will not return. We need some answers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the football intelligence unit. How it works is crucial, but there were questions about how it co-operated with the Dublin authorities during England's match there. I know that we are debating matches in Europe, but the Republic of Ireland is also part of Europe. I understood that the Minister with responsibility for sport was meant to co-ordinate the work of the Home Office and the Foreign Office with reference to our supporters travelling to international matches. I asked him whether he had had any discussions with the Dublin authorities the week before the match. He did not even pick up the phone to speak to the sports Minister in Dublin and ask how things were going. There had been no communication. That is scandalous.
We must remember that we are hosting the European championships next year, and many people will be coming. I hope that our hooligan minority will not be stirred up, and that our well-behaved supporters will not try to make up for the way they were treated by taking out their frustration on supporters from Europe. Football supporters matter, and football matters, but it is also important for the credibility of this country that we host the championships properly next year.
The World cup will be held in France in 1998 and, as my hon. Friend said, many people will be worried if England qualifies, as we hope that it will. They will be worried about going to watch England play in France if great attention is not paid to assisting our fans abroad. As Members of Parliament, we have to stand up for supporters who are going about the legitimate activity of watching a match abroad. We cannot put the matter aside and say that good supporters have to lumped together with the bad and receive the same treatment. It is not good enough to pass the buck.
I am afraid that the football authorities will say that the problem is a matter for the Government and the Foreign Office, and the Home Office will say that it is a matter for the Department of National Heritage. It is important that someone in Government gets a grip on this serious issue, which will not go away. The Minister must respond quickly to the evidence presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and the response must show that the Government are prepared to stand up for English citizens abroad.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been a useful debate. I do not wish to belittle any of the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) or for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), but the problem is that the hon. Gentleman's main contention was that police forces across Europe felt that it was fair game and open season to attack English fans because of their reputation.
Last season, according to my calculations, English clubs played some 17 matches in Europe. One or two of those 17 matches could have been extremely difficult, such as the Galatasaray match. We are concentrating on


three out of the 17. I do not want in any way to belittle the difficulties that may have arisen at those matches, but it is perfectly possible for English clubs to play in Europe with large numbers of English fans supporting and spectating, with no difficulties whatever. The idea that somehow police forces overseas see English fans as fair game, and that it is not possible for English fans to attend matches in Europe without getting into difficulties is not borne out by facts.
There is another difficulty, but again I do not want to belittle anything that the hon. Gentleman said. He read letters from a lot of people who had written to him regarding the three matches. Following those three matches—I have checked this carefully with officials from the Foreign Office, the Home Office and elsewhere within the Government—no football organisation or supporters organisation made any representations to us, either formally or informally.
I suspect that the attitude of many was summed up by Monica Hartman, the deputy chairman of the Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, who—after the match in Bruges—commented:
It is no good anybody trying to make excuses for these people who fell fou of the authorities in Bruges… I just hope that the actions of the Belgian police sends a message around the world to those other security forces who have been so lenient with the louts in the past. Some of them are not even house-trained let alone fit to be travelling abroad representing our country… They think that wherever they go they will strike fear into people.
Well this time they were up against a police force who remember Heysel and the terrible loss of life caused by hooliganism in their capital city … I applaud the way the Belgian police rounded them up and locked them away in community centres. What else did they deserve if they entered the country without tickets?"
In relation to this year's football season, we have not had representations from any of the official supporters clubs or the Football Association. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if concerns had been raised either by embassy staff who attended the matches or by the police—the hon. Gentleman knows that the UK police are present at all such matches—they would have been fully investigated. I have to say that concerns about the three matches were not raised either by consular staff or by the police.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does not the Minister understand that he is identifying the problem? The fact is that the fans are getting so used to such treatment that they are not complaining. I am articulating—aggressively, perhaps—the frustration and anger that supporters feel. They believe that no one is interested, and that there is no point in complaining because all they will get is a stunningly complacent response from the Minister. I mentioned only a few matches, but I can give the Minister evidence from other matches.

Mr. Baldry: There is nothing complacent about my response whatever. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady raised concerns about specific matches. One would have thought that if the clubs or the associations that represent supporters had real concerns about the way in which matches were policed, they would certainly have gone to the Home Office or to ourselves to talk them through. The idea that the representatives of football in this country are not prepared to talk to the Home Office or the Foreign Office about their concerns is just unreasonable.
One accepts that the vast majority of supporters who go abroad have not been implicated in any of these events. The hon. Gentleman read out a litany of concerns from football spectators who felt that they had been treated unfairly by the police authorities in relation to the three matches. But it is also important to recognise the coverage following the Zaragoza v. Chelsea match. The Daily Star reported:
Chelsea's hooligan element shamed English soccer once again with a sickening charge on Spanish riot police.
Mindless thugs threw seats, coins and anything they could lay their hands on as they fought a pitched battle.
Today said:
Hundreds of Chelsea fans heaped more shame on English football with another display of mindless violence last night.
Thugs went on the rampage after their team went 3–0 down in the European Cup-Winners' Cup semi final in Spain against Real Zaragoza.
They ripped up plastic seats and hurled them at the police, who responded with a series of baton-wielding charges… trouble exploded in the section especially reserved for Chelsea fans. Again it was a mindless few who disgraced the club's name, just as they had in Belgium when they faced Bruges.

Miss Hoey: Is the Minister saying that because some mindless hooligans behave in a way that we all condemn, that justifies many people being treated in the way described by my hon. Friend'?

Mr. Baldry: I do not accept that large numbers of people were brutalised in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
In relation to the Arsenal match in Genoa against Sampdoria, some concerns were raised about people being detained in a car park for several hours. We received eight letters of complaint about that match. One cannot discuss the three matches that have been raised this evening as if they were instances of police forces suddenly deciding to beat up a few English fans. That is the way in which they have been presented this evening.
What happened in three out of 17 matches this season—by any interpretation—was that a significant number of mindless thugs, who were, sadly, English, started to attack the police and other fans. Their actions resulted in a public order disturbance. When the police are trying to sort out large numbers of people misbehaving and causing violence late at night, I am afraid that occasionally some innocent people may get caught up in that. But it is neither fair nor reasonable to attack the police in those circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman has done, by asserting that they have gone on a bloodlust hunt and were simply seeking out English fans because they spoke English. The facts do not bear that out.

Mr. Tony Banks: The facts do bear it out. I do not know how much the Minister knows about football, nor do I know how many matches he has been to, either in this country or abroad. He is reading from a brief that has been prepared by someone who does not know anything about what happened at those matches. I have concentrated on those matches specifically because I thought that I would get only a short time to discuss the subject. I could refer to a range of other matches.
I suggest that the Minister speaks to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) about the experiences of some Manchester United supporters in Turkey. He should talk to hon. Members from Liverpool about the experiences that people from that area have had.
I have a track record in this area, as I proved 10 years ago. The Minister should be listening, and not just reading out second or third-hand stuff from journalists who frankly did not understand what was happening.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is being selective if he chooses to ignore all that was written by the reporters and those who attended those matches. He should reflect on the fact that, if events occurred as he suggested, it is surprising that none of the journalists, English sports writers and those who attended the matches chose to comment on it. I do not belittle or dismiss the concerns that he raised, but he has been selective in his interpretation of the facts. The facts that he and the hon. Lady put forward do not support the contention that police forces throughout Europe are picking on English fans. It is perfectly possible for English fans to go to Europe and watch football matches peacefully.
We all share a common interest in and are committed to stamping out football hooliganism. Before every European match, officials from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other Departments get together to see how it will be possible to minimise the difficulties that might occur. We in the Foreign Office seek to ensure that every party is kept in touch because, as the debate has made clear, a number of different Government organisations are involved. The Home Office is responsible for security and public order. It leads on issues arising from football hooliganism. The Department of National Heritage also has an interest in football policy, more broadly. The Football Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service collates police intelligence on persistent hooligans. It exchanges intelligence with foreign forces and plays a key role in identifying the troublemakers. Security advisers from the football associations and club officials are also directly involved in the pre-planning stage.
The Foreign Office seeks to ensure that all those parties are in touch to help with arrangements on the ground and, most importantly, to help British nationals who get into trouble. Consular staff at our posts abroad are well placed for that task. They are intent on responding and being available if there is a breakdown in public order surrounding a football match.

Miss Hoey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

Miss Hoey: The Minister has plenty of time to do so.

Mr. Baldry: I know.
In her speech, the hon. Lady's hypothesis was to concentrate on two matches and suggest that those examples proved that every time English spectators went abroad, they would be attacked by European police and nothing would be done to help them. The facts do not support that contention, and it is important that the House understands some of the facts.
Our consular staff know the local system and the language. Honorary consuls are often also involved. Those staff are involved right from the start in preparation and planning before a match. The level of staffing at a particular venue, and their deployment, is carefully worked out beforehand in consultation with local police.

Their aim is to be able to react quickly to calls for help from those arrested, injured, or otherwise distressed. They need to know in advance whether ticketless fans are to be detained away from the match.
One of the problems about a number of those matches is the number of people who turn up at the grounds without tickets. The consular staff need to know in which hospitals injured fans will be treated; where the troublemakers will be held; and how expulsion and deportation will be handled. When large numbers of fans are known to be travelling, not only consular staff are involved. The entire embassy staff and others will be deployed in and around the ground and at other relevant venues.
We wish to play a substantial part in countering football hooliganism, and will continue to do so. We have agreed this evening that it is not a problem for Government alone. The football authorities, clubs and the fans themselves must take a stand against those who cause trouble. Obviously, we try to prevent football hooligans from travelling to matches abroad. As the hon. Gentleman said, courts have the power to impose restriction orders, which means that those convicted of football-related offences can be prevented from attending key matches. That applies to matches in the United Kingdom and abroad. Those subject to restriction orders must report to a police station while the match is taking place.
As the hon. Gentleman said—his figures were slightly wrong—so far, only 26 restriction orders have been made. It is a reasonable inference that, given the small number of restriction orders that have been made, that scheme is not working as well as we would have wished. We are therefore considering ways in which it may be made more effective. The Home Office is reminding the courts and other interested parties of those powers. If we know the troublemakers, it may be sensible to impose restriction orders on them.
Last season was not one of which anyone can be altogether proud. Sadly, there was a resurgence of violence on and off the pitch in the UK. It sometimes seemed likely that that rather unpleasant aspect of football might be an export item. We were acutely aware that there were six English teams involved in the three major European competitions this season.
In the European Champions cup, Manchester United played in three matches. The game against Galatasaray in Istanbul in September last year had the potential to be the most difficult. The House will recall that it followed a previous encounter there, when six English fans were detained and some 180 were deported without seeing the game. The lessons of the past had been learned. There was close liaison between the clubs, police, UEFA and consular staff. We sent an official from the Consular Department in the Foreign Office to help, and that game went off perfectly peacefully. Directors of the club and Greater Manchester police were grateful for our contribution to the end result.
The Manchester United-Galatasaray game in Istanbul, which started off the season last September, proves that it is possible for English teams to play in Europe and not get into difficulties. The same applies to the three English clubs represented in the UEFA cup. Fans from Newcastle United, Blackburn Rovers and Aston Villa travelled to Holland, Spain, Sweden, Italy and Turkey and there was no trouble at any of those matches. Indeed, the citizens of Bilbao paid tribute to the behaviour of Newcastle United


supporters. So one must also ask why the Spanish police did not have to intervene on that occasion, and one can only conclude that they were not provoked as they were at Zaragoza. That means that the only difficulties resulted from the matches played in the European cup winners cup, and we have gone into those in considerable detail.

Miss Hoey: Is the Minister suggesting that the Arsenal supporters behaved badly at the final in Paris and that no trouble was caused by the Newcastle supporters in some of their matches?

Mr. Baldry: What I am saying to the hon. Lady is that the facts do not support the contention that French police suddenly decided to pick on or attack English supporters and spectators simply because they were English. I have made it clear this evening that it is perfectly possible—indeed, it frequently happens—for English clubs to go and watch matches in Europe with no difficulties whatever.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No; I will not give way again.
I accept without question that the vast majority of the football-watching public are innocent fans showing support for their chosen team. Of course I have sympathy with the resentment that they must feel about being regarded in the same light as thugs who are intent on causing trouble. Of course I deplore the inevitable occasions when any innocent fan is caught up in efforts to control troublemakers. [Interruption.] I say "inevitable" because we have all seen the disturbing and frightening images on our television screens. They give us only a hint of the chaos of a full-scale football riot and, in the face of a violent breakdown in law and order, decisions must he made by individual police officers in the blink of an eye. I know that no innocent supporter deserves to be harshly treated, and of course we all deplore that.
I can only suggest that genuine fans do all that they can to keep well clear of those who attend a match but have no interest in the game. That goes for football clubs, too. Experience shows that the safest way to watch a game overseas is to travel with the supporters club party and heed its advice. It may cost more than travelling independently, but costs are not always about money. Naturally, our consular staff are there, seeking to help anyone who gets into trouble.
I say to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Vauxhall, who repeatedly jump up and down, that if Arsenal or Chelsea feel that they have genuine worries about the way in which the Foreign Office or the Home Office help to contribute to the organising of overseas matches, I shall be delighted to meet them. However, neither Chelsea, Arsenal nor any other football club or

football organisation sought to visit Ministers to express anxieties about any aspect of the past season. That is because those clubs, I believe, recognise that the Foreign Office, the Home Office and all the other organisations involved have been, and are, working extremely hard to try to ensure that English spectators, when they go to Europe to watch matches, can have an enjoyable time, watch a match and return safely.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am trying to communicate to the Minister the fact that those people do not come to visit him and they do not complain because it is a waste of time. If I may say so, his speech is clear evidence that it would be a waste of time. He appears to have dismissed all the evidence that I have given tonight as being of no great concern because it relates to only three matches. Next time, I shall produce evidence from all the other matches as well.
It is outrageous that the Minister appears not to be prepared to accept that that evidence is genuine and that he shows no concern about what is going on. Those organisations do not come and see him because, on the evidence, it seems to be a rightful assumption that they will get short shrift from him.

Mr. Baldry: But all the football organisations are co-operating and working with the Foreign Office day in, day out, throughout the year, as are the police forces, as are the relevant organisations. It is a picture of continuing co-operation. They do not mention, and have not mentioned, the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expressed, not because they believe that we are insensitive to them but because they recognise that co-operation takes place to ensure that English spectators may travel overseas and watch matches safely. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that the speeches that he and the hon. Member for Vauxhall made this evening have not fairly reflected either this season or the work that is carried out by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and English clubs.
If any football organisation, football spectators organisation, football supporters organisation or football club feels that there is a scintilla of a shadow of a suggestion of truth in the proposition that both hon. Members advanced this evening—that European police forces are declaring open season on English fans—I very much hope that they will seek out Home Office and Foreign Office Ministers to talk us through that, because I shall be keen to listen to what they have to say. None of them has sought to do so, because they know, as we know, and as the House knows, that that contention simply is not true.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.